6 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
6 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

internal search result pages meta

by Steviebone
5 replies
  • SEO
    • |
I have two questions regarding internal search result pages. I know that Google has stated that it doesn't want them indexed.

In my case, there are lots of search result pages that are relevant to an end user that Google will NEVER be able to duplicate due to the type of search engine used internally.

Let me elaborate a bit. When visitors search for a word/phrase they are allowed to set scope to phrase, sentence, paragraph, page, number or citation shorthand, as well as set exact/inexact match, AND/OR logic etc. Different results are shown depending the entire context/type/scope of the particular search. More importantly, results are grouped together and show relevant parent headings to each group of results.

For example, a search for the term 'divorce' might return something like:

Code:
 Family Code
   Sec. 1.001 Definitions
      'divorce means...'

   Sec. 52.004 Jurisdiction
      'jurisdiction for the divorce is controlled by...'

Civil Procedure
   Sec. 3.12 Waiver 
      'applies of waiver in a  divorce proceeding...'
I know Google wants to index everything it's own way, but these results can be highly relevant to a specific search query, very unique and as such be valuable to end users. IMO, these pages should be included in the index.

So how hard and fast is the rule and what are the real-world implications to the site at large for including these pages?

Second, all of these pages have links back to content pages which should definitely be in the index. Links to all of these pages occur naturally elsewhere in the site structure, however. Should I nofollow those links to prevent unnecessary crawling? Or would that diminish internal rank for those pages?

So with regards to my page level meta tag should I use:

noindex, nofollow - don't index the search result page and don't follow the links

noindex, follow - don't index the search result page but follow the links (increased references to the internal pages)

index, nofollow - index but don't follow

or just allow both.

Google already has a problem following all the internal links on the site. There are literally millions. I would like to lower the bot load without hurting rankings or limiting what is potentially indexed.

What's your take? Is indexing unique value added search result pages arbitrarily detrimental? Should the links back to content be followed even if the page itself is excluded?
#internal #internal search result #meta #pages #result #search
  • Profile picture of the author paulgl
    You're no making sense.

    First you say google does not want to index them, then in the
    same line say that google indexes them. Well, if they really
    did not want to index them, they wouldn't. Period.

    Google indexes usless things all the time. Those search
    result pages would never be found in a million years.

    The reason google tells webmasters to not allow them to be
    indexed, is because it fills up stats, data, pages, etc. with
    stuff that is useless, and sometimes is not found, leading webmasters
    to think their site is full of errors. When in reality, it's not.

    It's also a waste of a bot's time and effort crawling search results.

    Since search results are created on the fly, they are not individual pages
    that you just noindex. Nofollow has zip to do with anything.

    Use your robots.txt to disallow them.

    It would be something like:

    User-agent: *
    Disallow: /search

    There is no reason to want to index search result pages. Like I said,
    it's a complete waste of resources on both ends. But it's not the
    end of the world either.

    If your site has millions of links and google can't follow them, you might think
    you have millions of problems. You don't. You obviously do not have millions
    of pages. If your main page links are not crawled, then you have problems.

    Paul
    Signature

    If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9906132].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Steviebone
    You're no making sense.

    First you say google does not want to index them, then in the
    same line say that google indexes them. Well, if they really
    did not want to index them, they wouldn't. Period.
    First, I am making perfect sense. Google has stated that they are not keen on indexing search result pages.This issue has been widely discussed on the web, no need to rehash. You can google it

    I said Google has stated they might prefer them to be excluded. I never said that Google hadn't indexed many of them in my case. Period.
    Google indexes usless things all the time. Those search
    result pages would never be found in a million years.
    Wrong. If i did not get referrals to them I wouldn't be concerned about the issue in any case. True, many are relegated to obscurity, but not always.

    The reason google tells webmasters to not allow them to be
    indexed, is because it fills up stats, data, pages, etc. with
    stuff that is useless, and sometimes is not found, leading webmasters
    to think their site is full of errors. When in reality, it's not.
    That may be in many cases, but not in mine. The results are not useless and there are no errors.

    It's also a waste of a bot's time and effort crawling search results.
    Well now we're getting close to a relevant point - Reducing unnecessary crawls and server load.

    Since search results are created on the fly, they are not individual pages
    that you just noindex. Nofollow has zip to do with anything.
    Wrong. Even if the page is is to be excluded from the index it contains links to specific pages I want ranked internally.

    There is no reason to want to index search result pages. Like I said,
    it's a complete waste of resources on both ends. But it's not the
    end of the world either.
    Wrong again. And, as I said, (in fact with a specific example), these pages are not useless, they are in fact unique. Google does not return results in context with parent headings. These parent headings are ESSENTIAL in context of what my visitors are looking for. This single feature saves my visitors countless wasted clicks trying to locate truly relevant information.

    You obviously do not have millions of pages
    How would you know what I have or don't have. How many pages of statutes, case law, regulations, and opinions do you suppose there is even for a single state, let alone 50 states, federal legislation?... what about globally?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9907281].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author savidge4
      I think I kind of touched on this in another thread with you. I personally was having some issues with search pages showing up I didn't want. Specifically in my case the website produces 2 types of search results. there is product search, and then there is article search.


      In terms of product search the search output is lack luster at best in terms of SEO. Probably below the border of being thin content.


      With Article search, I did boost the displayed word count up to 200, so a search result page of 10 results is going to create a page with 2000 words 10 images and the desired keyword approximately 20 times.


      I do have a number of these pages in lower competition terms in the top 10. More so with Bing, than google.. but I seriously couldcare less where the traffic comes from! LOL


      Originally Posted by Steviebone View Post

      First, I am making perfect sense. Google has stated that they are not keen on indexing search result pages.This issue has been widely discussed on the web, no need to rehash. You can google it

      I said Google has stated they might prefer them to be excluded. I never said that Google hadn't indexed many of them in my case. Period.
      Wrong. If i did not get referrals to them I wouldn't be concerned about the issue in any case. True, many are relegated to obscurity, but not always.

      That may be in many cases, but not in mine. The results are not useless and there are no errors.

      Well now we're getting close to a relevant point - Reducing unnecessary crawls and server load.

      Wrong. Even if the page is is to be excluded from the index it contains links to specific pages I want ranked internally.

      Wrong again. And, as I said, (in fact with a specific example), these pages are not useless, they are in fact unique. Google does not return results in context with parent headings. These parent headings are ESSENTIAL in context of what my visitors are looking for. This single feature saves my visitors countless wasted clicks trying to locate truly relevant information.

      How would you know what I have or don't have. How many pages of statutes, case law, regulations, and opinions do you suppose there is even for a single state, let alone 50 states, federal legislation?... what about globally?
      Signature
      Success is an ACT not an idea
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9907319].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Steviebone
    Interestingly I did some fresh analysis of recent landing pages from google refers to my site and found that almost one third of them could be interpreted as search result pages. I think the important thing is whether or not the page exceeds the criteria for 'thin content' and provides value added information to the visitor that they couldn't get from a standard Google/Bing search.

    Let me give a specific example. Let's say someone is looking for "divorce proceedings" in California Statutes. If they land on a page that already has citations with notes showing everywhere that this term is covered across all 53 Codes, then further broken down by parent and section headings (to see context), this is far more useful than any standard SERP.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919246].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author paulgl
      ROTFLMAO!

      I can't believe the shtuff here. Makes no sense.

      If google truly is "not keen" in indexing search results, then you again
      contradict yourself multiple times.

      First, if google is not keen on them, they would make sure they
      never did index them. End of story. But wait, there's more!

      Second, (after stating google is "not keen" on them) you have the
      nerve to turn around and say they are "valuable."

      Can't have it both ways.

      Google could care less about your search results pages. It's a waste of
      a crawler's time, THAT IS why they are not keen on it. Those pages would give
      a lousy product to a searcher. The only way those pages are indexed, is if
      the googlebot crawls the site at exactly the same time someone searches.

      I can't remember the last time I searched a site, and I can't remember ever
      getting a search page result in SERPs.

      Sure. Go on with your bad self. You have plenty of company on the ship of
      fools.

      Paul
      Signature

      If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919462].message }}

Trending Topics